The best visual effects? Logan, no doubt. That shit blew my mind when I found out that in multiple occassions, Hugh Jackman was full CGI. Especially when he sees X-24.
@@stargazestudios So, you're telling me Hugh Jackman didn't do a double role in that movie? Or did he just give the expressions for X24 and that is what was replaced later in VFX?
What a great effects! And I am huge fan of digital effects of 90’s. This was pure pleasure to see original footages of Forrest Gump and how it was made compared to final movie. Such good effect considering low performance of computer pd that era. Great to see and learn.
Invisible effects, to me, can be just as amazing, or sometimes, more so than the obvious ones. The craft behind them only adds to their underappreciated magic. Glad to see a video about this. I also love that there is intelligent, constructive analysis/ criticism of films that got certain right or wrong.
I feel the same way about golden-age Hollywood effects. There's so many matte paintings, miniatures etc. that I never knew were effects, till I saw how they were done. Some are still flawless today.
The people behind all this invisible CGI/VFX wizardry don't get the appreciation they truly deserve. I find it fascinating how much reliance the industry has on these people to pull-off even the most basic of scenes such as those in Ugly Betty as you commented here. I could see where CGI was going way back in the late '80s/early '90s when I dreamed of making a career in CGI. All we really had then was the great work by John Lassiter and the Pixar team, of which I re-created many scenes on an Amiga 2000 and Real3D, until Terminator 2 debuted and firmly set the CGI flag in the ground of the future.
*SUBSCRIBE TO ME FOR NO REASON* Me too, at the beginning I thought that it sounded a little robotic, but as the video progressed, I thought that it was real because it got more natural.
These people who spend many many hours behind the computer screen all deserve oscars, they’re the ones who literally are making films a frame by a frame...I love VFX and CGI, it’s come a long way since I did it....
A lot of complaints about “unrealistic” digital humans now days are not because the effect wasn’t real enough, it’s because people know that actor is already dead or much older. To people who don’t already know, almost none of them can see the effect.
I have to say that although I'm not a huge fan of Forrest Gump, watching the clips from it here gave me a new appreciation for the outstanding quality of its effects work. Hard to believe it was released in 1994! In general I think this video is a bit over-generous though. Some of the shots that the narration claims are indistinguishable from reality are actually at least a little bit 'off'. Children of Men is one of my favourite films, and they did a great job with the CGI baby, but it's not completely convincing.
The Michael Douglas deaging effect, although amazingly well crafted, is very noticeable (there is a little bit of uncanny valley there), R.D. Jr. one i think looks more natural.
I don't know, when I see clips of it on UA-cam it looks really fake but when I watch the movie on Blu-Ray it looks really convincing. It's like the UA-cam encoding makes CGI effects stand out more for some reason.
Is this a joke? Rogue one digital face was much more noticeable than terminator Yes cause it has more talking scenes But the few seconds that Arnold digi double speaks is not noticeable at all
Yeah the effect in 2049 blew my mind when I found it it was an effect, being unfamiliar with the character from the original I had no idea that it wasn't just another actor
im not surprised at all when it got to a point when the thought and creativity had left the brain and absorbed studio fever and the majority of film makers forgot what the real world looks like
It's a bit sad that the better these CGI people are at their job, the less recognition they'll actually going to get because no one's even notice any CGI in the first place. Their job is to make sure no one notices that any work was being done in the first place.
As I know, the first movie in which they used invisible special effects (they actually called them "normal effects") is True Lies, by James Cameron, in 1994 as well.
Excellent brother , can you make a video on how to get started with vfx . Mind, tools and area perception of vfx creation. If u do than its huge help for me and many more .
What puzzles me is that sometimes VFX seems totally unnecessary. Take one of the final examples in the video. Why did they have use a CG(-enhanced) cap? Thay could have just used a real cap. The same goes for Odin's eyepatch in Thor Ragnarok. For some strange reason they added the eye patch in post production. Is Anthony Hopkins allergic to eye patches?
One problem as the visual effects get perfected for digitally created humans will be CCTV evidence of crimes. Surely that evidence will not be submissable in court because the argument could be that it was digitally created?
Producers mostly care about making money, that's the sad reality of life. Very few care about how the movies are made, just as long as its cheap to make, good enough and it makes money. Also most of the modern day blockbusters with a lot CGI tend to make more money than movies that have CGI you don't notice, so they will continue to do the thing that makes the most amount of money.
I want to know something Why is now everyone calling every algorithm « AI »? Motion tracking is not supposed to be an entity that acts on it’s own, it’s a sequence of operations that analyzes multiple images and translates it into a 3d space.
There is actually a very valid reason. When you hear AI (from people that you can be sure they know what they're talking about) most probably the referred technique is not an algorithm. I have not now looked up to get perfect definitions, but commonly an algorithm is a fixed set of logical and mathematical rules that generally take an input value and give out another one. What is being referred as an AI is a neural network. Like an algorithm you can use a neural network to generate an output from an input, but unlike an algorithm, its working is very organic, much less clear and human-determined, and more importantly is _does_ change and evolve without literal human intervents on its inner working, not in the same way of an algorithm. These AIs are generated with a system similar to neurons talking to each other, and by training (literal trial and error of the inteligence), its behaviour slowly concentrates from pure randomness to the desired results it has been instructed to reach. You can teach an AI how to remove noise from an image, how to understand human language and turn it in digital words, how to recognize the content of a video (youtube's _algorithm_ is an example of this), how to generate music, how to swap faces in videos and photos (look for deepfakes videos)... You don't put literal math in an Ai, defining math formulas that describe the content of pixels with numbers and whatnot, it is deeply different. Look up for Neural Networks to discover more about how actual artificial inteligence is being used in your intrest areas, it's very fascinating.
Most of these look pretty solid, but dear god, what went wrong with Tarkin and Leia? Those two weren't even close, they both looked like assets ripped from one of the EA games.
The text-to-speech voiceover used here almost falls into the uncanny valley of voice; it rides the line between stunted and fluid in an unsettling way. - Is it a Digital Human?
They already do. I mean actors are replaced for digital models in half of Marvel films, especially action shots. Like Hella is CG apart from the face and full on lighting Thor is full CG apart from the head. And now Will Smith is releasing a new film where there will be his young clone running around who is CG character.
2028: locations and actors needed: 0 2035: *let your own smartphone render 100% realistic movies from your personal presets, a movie made for you in this moment* 2036: kids “what is Hollywood?”
The best visual effects? Logan, no doubt. That shit blew my mind when I found out that in multiple occassions, Hugh Jackman was full CGI. Especially when he sees X-24.
Yeah - the voice is very robotic. Not quite there yet.
The best CGI face replacement I’ve seen so far was in the movie Logan.
Oh, yes.
It was amazing.
It was so good, I honestly thought he did the scene twice most of the time
@@stargazestudios So, you're telling me Hugh Jackman didn't do a double role in that movie? Or did he just give the expressions for X24 and that is what was replaced later in VFX?
@@stargazestudios Oh OK! So Hugh didn't do even the expressions of X24 or anything?
What a great effects! And I am huge fan of digital effects of 90’s. This was pure pleasure to see original footages of Forrest Gump and how it was made compared to final movie. Such good effect considering low performance of computer pd that era. Great to see and learn.
Invisible effects, to me, can be just as amazing, or sometimes, more so than the obvious ones. The craft behind them only adds to their underappreciated magic. Glad to see a video about this. I also love that there is intelligent, constructive analysis/ criticism of films that got certain right or wrong.
I feel the same way about golden-age Hollywood effects. There's so many matte paintings, miniatures etc. that I never knew were effects, till I saw how they were done. Some are still flawless today.
this is just a text to speech video lmao
It's still an amazingly well put together video
The people behind all this invisible CGI/VFX wizardry don't get the appreciation they truly deserve. I find it fascinating how much reliance the industry has on these people to pull-off even the most basic of scenes such as those in Ugly Betty as you commented here. I could see where CGI was going way back in the late '80s/early '90s when I dreamed of making a career in CGI. All we really had then was the great work by John Lassiter and the Pixar team, of which I re-created many scenes on an Amiga 2000 and Real3D, until Terminator 2 debuted and firmly set the CGI flag in the ground of the future.
This is why I love old movies
Is it your voice or updated text to speech, sounds more natural
Text to speech. It sounds shite.
@@JackRipper8881 What? If it's a computer, it sounds AMAZING. Didn't think it was a machine at all
@@JackRipper8881 I noticed it right away...the sound of the voice is pretty good...the intionation though...and the emotion...is completely lifeless.
@@Praxiszooms I've just realized when this video ended. Been so shocked that I noticed it at the end
i noticed it only after this comment, I thought it was a human voice
wow I went the entire video without realizing that the voice was automated. I figured it out when I read the comments.
*SUBSCRIBE TO ME FOR NO REASON*
Me too, at the beginning I thought that it sounded a little robotic, but as the video progressed, I thought that it was real because it got more natural.
I noticed at the first 30 secs lol
@@artyknotswastaken Huh, I would never had known had I not read the comments 🤔
@@artyknotswastaken i already after 5 seconds!
I thought it was plainly obvious after hearing the first few words.
Great video. I have to disagree about Tarkin though, I thought it stood out a mile as a CG head.
Noremac Animation & Games Agreed. I hated it. It was marginally better than Leia but not much.
it was really bad
I just found this channel and I need to say that from now on it is my favourite one
These people who spend many many hours behind the computer screen all deserve oscars, they’re the ones who literally are making films a frame by a frame...I love VFX and CGI, it’s come a long way since I did it....
Superb video
A lot of complaints about “unrealistic” digital humans now days are not because the effect wasn’t real enough, it’s because people know that actor is already dead or much older. To people who don’t already know, almost none of them can see the effect.
I have to say that although I'm not a huge fan of Forrest Gump, watching the clips from it here gave me a new appreciation for the outstanding quality of its effects work. Hard to believe it was released in 1994!
In general I think this video is a bit over-generous though. Some of the shots that the narration claims are indistinguishable from reality are actually at least a little bit 'off'. Children of Men is one of my favourite films, and they did a great job with the CGI baby, but it's not completely convincing.
Thanks for the many informations in this video. Very good job!
The Michael Douglas deaging effect, although amazingly well crafted, is very noticeable (there is a little bit of uncanny valley there), R.D. Jr. one i think looks more natural.
I don't know, when I see clips of it on UA-cam it looks really fake but when I watch the movie on Blu-Ray it looks really convincing. It's like the UA-cam encoding makes CGI effects stand out more for some reason.
Your digital voice has beaten the CGI information. Nice work!
I absolutely love CGI that is CGI you can't tell, even when they show it to you, you still won't see the difference.
Terrific!
Excellent.
Keep it up.
Thank you so much!
😍🧡🦋👍💛😘💜🌹☘️🌷💚❤️🍦💞♥️
it so cool
great job
One of these days I reckon we'll get a whole movie that's made 100% in cgi, the set, the actors, everything! Would be hella cool to see
Beautiful works
Interesting at first but scary shit at the end lol
Is this a joke?
Rogue one digital face was much more noticeable than terminator
Yes cause it has more talking scenes
But the few seconds that Arnold digi double speaks is not noticeable at all
0:18 Małgosia Kożuchowska
I always notice CGI characters, i guess i have a bit of an eye for it. Blade Runner is the first time i was fooled 100%, that effect is stunning.
Yeah the effect in 2049 blew my mind when I found it it was an effect, being unfamiliar with the character from the original I had no idea that it wasn't just another actor
Fast and Furious 7 had some of the most amazing work done for a face replacement by Weta Digital.
im not surprised at all when it got to a point when the thought and creativity had left the brain and absorbed studio fever and the majority of film makers forgot what the real world looks like
I've learnt many thing from your channel, thanks VFX Geek, plz. make more video
I do like this Text To Speech better so good job for swamping it out. Good job overall, actually.
I didn't notice until I checked the previous one. I am no native English speaker but this really sounds more humane.
You mean, the narratjon is not natural from a human?
Amazing!!
Perfect video!
They have always trouble with the mouth movements. Its something that still requires some years to be perfect
it was awesome!
Great videos bro. Keep up the solid work 👍,
my brain just blowed up
Wow, i'm shocked seeing Polish actors in movie about CGI :o
speaking of fx i never even realised this was text to speech!
It's a bit sad that the better these CGI people are at their job, the less recognition they'll actually going to get because no one's even notice any CGI in the first place. Their job is to make sure no one notices that any work was being done in the first place.
As I know, the first movie in which they used invisible special effects (they actually called them "normal effects") is True Lies, by James Cameron, in 1994 as well.
i just noticed UNREAL ENGINE :D
Unnoticed? Captain Big Head was the oddest CGI until Flying Head Bruce Banner.
Oh the irony… a video about "invisible effects" narrated by a text-to-speech program! :)
The sheep from Brokeback Mountain are invisible CGI.
thats really amazing
thank you for sharing this and help us to improve more :)
Fascinating video, despite the annoying synthesized narration.
The Baby was the most effective digital effect IMO.
Excellent brother , can you make a video on how to get started with vfx . Mind, tools and area perception of vfx creation. If u do than its huge help for me and many more .
Perfect! You almost cannot tell that the narrator is an AI.
I want that software
Thank you for your uploading and imformarion
8:10 when I watched terminator genesis, I thought that uncanny effect was on purpose to show he was just a robot
Amazing content 😱😱👍👍
Speaking of de-aging, don't forget possibly the greatest example, Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. 👍
What puzzles me is that sometimes VFX seems totally unnecessary. Take one of the final examples in the video. Why did they have use a CG(-enhanced) cap? Thay could have just used a real cap. The same goes for Odin's eyepatch in Thor Ragnarok. For some strange reason they added the eye patch in post production. Is Anthony Hopkins allergic to eye patches?
At 9:28 Is that suppose to be famous person (that I don't recognizance) or is it justa screen test :)?
3:32 you can see the scene with the tennis courts and buildings are CGI... the textures on the building look flat and looks like a 3D model.
You kind of sound like a speech synthesizer
One problem as the visual effects get perfected for digitally created humans will be CCTV evidence of crimes. Surely that evidence will not be submissable in court because the argument could be that it was digitally created?
Just out of curiosity, is the narration being done by a text-to-speech program?
Yes ;)
@@VFXGeek which one?
What about the Silver Surfer? That effect is still amazing today.
is irony or are yoy actually bragging about ir
Yes, the best kind of CGI and special effect is the kind you don't notice. Wish more modern movie producers would make note of that.
Producers mostly care about making money, that's the sad reality of life. Very few care about how the movies are made, just as long as its cheap to make, good enough and it makes money. Also most of the modern day blockbusters with a lot CGI tend to make more money than movies that have CGI you don't notice, so they will continue to do the thing that makes the most amount of money.
lmao 1:04, when Steven Seagal was a thing
Next video will talk about the advancements in speech synthesizing.
От Таркина так и несло "зловещей долиной", слишком нереалистично он там смотрелся на фоне того же Креника, как и Лея.
How dare you not mention Paul Walker
De-aged Michael Douglas and Tarkin in _Rogue One_ looked terrible.
So much unexpected green screen in ugly Betty
What happened with the faceswapping of Eastwoods face in In the line of fire (1993)?
what TTS do you use????
They probably used a generic one, then later edited the audio to make it sound smooth. (This is just a guess and how I would do it, though)
I want to know something
Why is now everyone calling every algorithm « AI »?
Motion tracking is not supposed to be an entity that acts on it’s own, it’s a sequence of operations that analyzes multiple images and translates it into a 3d space.
There is actually a very valid reason. When you hear AI (from people that you can be sure they know what they're talking about) most probably the referred technique is not an algorithm. I have not now looked up to get perfect definitions, but commonly an algorithm is a fixed set of logical and mathematical rules that generally take an input value and give out another one.
What is being referred as an AI is a neural network. Like an algorithm you can use a neural network to generate an output from an input, but unlike an algorithm, its working is very organic, much less clear and human-determined, and more importantly is _does_ change and evolve without literal human intervents on its inner working, not in the same way of an algorithm.
These AIs are generated with a system similar to neurons talking to each other, and by training (literal trial and error of the inteligence), its behaviour slowly concentrates from pure randomness to the desired results it has been instructed to reach.
You can teach an AI how to remove noise from an image, how to understand human language and turn it in digital words, how to recognize the content of a video (youtube's _algorithm_ is an example of this), how to generate music, how to swap faces in videos and photos (look for deepfakes videos)...
You don't put literal math in an Ai, defining math formulas that describe the content of pixels with numbers and whatnot, it is deeply different.
Look up for Neural Networks to discover more about how actual artificial inteligence is being used in your intrest areas, it's very fascinating.
Most of these look pretty solid, but dear god, what went wrong with Tarkin and Leia? Those two weren't even close, they both looked like assets ripped from one of the EA games.
The text-to-speech voiceover used here almost falls into the uncanny valley of voice; it rides the line between stunted and fluid in an unsettling way. - Is it a Digital Human?
am i the only one who don't mind the voice?
How could you forget the Benjamin Button movie?
NASA effects
Yeah that ping pong scene in forrest gump. Toooootally undetectable. Well... unless you have experienced physics on planet Earth
The voice narration sounds normal but the speech syntax is odd.
What's with the TTS CG voice?
How do you decide where you put the damn caption "before/after" because l'm so lost it pisses me off !
The captions are auto-generated by UA-cam. I didn't create it.
@@VFXGeek Not the subtitles the before/after in the video regarding the effects
just realize months later that is a robot
Make a video of 'TextToSpeech effects - the history and the future'
Anyone know name of the movie in the end ???
what if we start having animated celebrities that like appear in different movies and they start winning best part lol
They already do. I mean actors are replaced for digital models in half of Marvel films, especially action shots. Like Hella is CG apart from the face and full on lighting Thor is full CG apart from the head. And now Will Smith is releasing a new film where there will be his young clone running around who is CG character.
Because they were talking about high-end visual-effects and fooling people in this video... Means we didn't notice the robotic voice?
the top lips of the cgi characters don't move that much as they should
2028: locations and actors needed: 0
2035: *let your own smartphone render 100% realistic movies from your personal presets, a movie made for you in this moment*
2036: kids “what is Hollywood?”
04;16 Industrial Light & Magic | VFX and Animation Studio
Matte painting.
you got terminator because it was a robot who was doing the talking in the movie not a human being
What was updated?
Only some details and ending. The video is basically the same.
few videos were added in the ending
What about audrey hepburn in that advertising in italy?
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
This "Discovery Channel Voice like" really pisses me off on UA-cam
David Fincher blood in the girl with dragon tatoo
Michael Douglas - nope, doesn't look right at all.
Tron Legacy's younger Jeff Bridges was great too.
No, it looks terrible today.
@@Winduct No, The Scorpian King in The Mummy looks terrible.
@@everythingphil9376 So did young Jeff Bridges xD